Some info on sub-numbers. Not just for SWTOR.

I found the following information at MMOData.net. These are charts in which they track sub numbers over the years, measuring their peaks. It's a little out-dated, having been updated on May 8th. I just found it interesting, how many games didn't even breach the 1 million mark. Assuming this data is correct, of course.

1. Games that have peaked at over 1 million.

2. Games that have peaked from 150k-1 mil.

3. Games that have peaked between 150k-50k.
Edited due to large picture. Can click images for bigger versions. -Arlee

Last edited by Arlee; 2012-08-23 at 06:24 PM.

There were around 7,000 Greeks in total at the Battle of Thermopylae.
Not just the Spartans and a few inept imbeciles to play clean up.
Friends don't let friends listen to Zach Snyder/

I personally have looked at this date in the past. AC and Vanguard were both amazing (in my opinion) but their sub numbers were no where near astronomical. Subscription numbers do not determine if the game is great or not. Its all on perspective.

I personally have looked at this date in the past. AC and Vanguard were both amazing (in my opinion) but their sub numbers were no where near astronomical. Subscription numbers do not determine if the game is great or not. Its all on perspective.

Ridiculous! Sub numbers clearly determine if a game is good or not, and if a game doesn't maintain at least 1 million players it's an awful game!

Seriously though, the thing I actually find most interesting about the graphs is how long some of these games stayed around with relatively few players. I mean look at Ultima Online, it looks like it was around for 12 years and only peaked at 250k players. I think it puts things in a different perspective.

Also is Aion still a subs game? That is one that I have never really looked into.

As far as I know those graphs are pretty accurate. I haven't really seen anyone disprove their info.

To quote from their page:

Accuracy Rating :

A rating – Most or all of the datapoints come from official or other reliable sources and are in line with other numbers and information.

B rating – Part of the datapoints come from official or other reliable sources and part of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.

C rating – Some of the datapoints may come from official or other reliable sources, many of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.

Star Wars The Old Republic
Abbreviation = SWTORAccuracy Rating B

World of Warcraft
Abbreviation = WoWAccuracy Rating A

World of Warcraft East
Abbreviation = WoW EastAccuracy Rating B

World of Warcraft West
Abbreviation = WoW WestAccuracy Rating B

Rift
Abbreviation = RiftAccuracy Rating C

Ultimate verdict...they really can't prove anything. Almost every entry is graded by their own scale of B and lower. Even determining their A grade, I underlined why I will never believe anything they publish. Basically everything they do is logical guesswork. No thank you.

Edit: They also do not reveal what any of these 'reliable sources' are. Oh ok, please feed me the sugar spoon sir!

The problem with the internet is parallel to its greatest achievement: it has given the little man an outlet where he can be heard. Most of the time however, the little man is a little man because he is not worth hearing.
Want to chat with people who aren't idiots? Join our IRC.

I personally have looked at this date in the past. AC and Vanguard were both amazing (in my opinion) but their sub numbers were no where near astronomical. Subscription numbers do not determine if the game is great or not. Its all on perspective.

@Niker99

These were graphs created before TSW was released.

I found AC alright, but Vanguard (to me) was 'meh' at best. It's like the EQ guy (Brad McQuaid, I think) just tried to make "his version" of EverQuest. My RL best friend lauded this game as a WoW-killer, and I got to smugly laugh at him for.. well.. I still do it if he mentions Vanguard. Years of entertainment for me, and I only actually played the game for less than a month!

However, you're correct. To each his own. I wasn't posting it to show who's "best" (I don't care for WoW, the obvious 'winner'). I just thought it was interesting is all.

There were around 7,000 Greeks in total at the Battle of Thermopylae.
Not just the Spartans and a few inept imbeciles to play clean up.
Friends don't let friends listen to Zach Snyder/

Rift topped a million really quick. So obviously the data is off for that one. The rest seems pretty close to what I have seen before heard in the past yada yada yada. Also sub numbers are a measure of success not quality.

Ultimate verdict...they really can't prove anything. Almost every entry is graded by their own scale of B and lower. Even determining their A grade, I underlined why I will never believe anything they publish. Basically everything they do is logical guesswork. No thank you.

Yeah, it's not really "proof". You can't prove your numbers when the company doesn't release them (Trion, for example). These are estimates, and the site even admits they're estimates. The community is pretty good at figuring these things out, though. The charts might be off one way or another, but it can't be by that much, right? Say 30-50k in one direction or the other?

Which particular entry did you find the most "false" or "inaccurate"? Just curiosity on my part.

There were around 7,000 Greeks in total at the Battle of Thermopylae.
Not just the Spartans and a few inept imbeciles to play clean up.
Friends don't let friends listen to Zach Snyder/

Ultimate verdict...they really can't prove anything. Almost every entry is graded by their own scale of B and lower. Even determining their A grade, I underlined why I will never believe anything they publish. Basically everything they do is logical guesswork. No thank you.

Edit: They also do not reveal what any of these 'reliable sources' are. Oh ok, please feed me the sugar spoon sir!

Ah I see, well that is saddening.

Originally Posted by Kaibhan

Rift topped a million really quick. So obviously the data is off for that one. The rest seems pretty close to what I have seen before heard in the past yada yada yada. Also sub numbers are a measure of success not quality.

You mean topped a million sales? Because you can easily have over a million sales and not ever have over a million subs.

"The only number we saw was 1 million, which referred to Rift accounts pre-launch. That didn't mean 1 million people had bought the game, nor did it mean 1 million were paying an £8.99 a month subscription.

Hartsman declared Rift "is absolutely profitable", but there's a tendency to believe that if the developer/publisher hasn't shared numbers, then those numbers weren't worth shouting about. Had Rift more than 1 million subscribers, we believe we'd have heard about it by now.

We've seen this kind of behaviour before. Dungeons & Dragons Online, The Lord of the Rings Online, Age of Conan, Champions Online, DC Universe Online and soon Star Trek Online all withheld subscriber numbers. Then, months - sometimes years - down the line, each game eventually reinvented itself as a free-to-play MMO."

There were around 7,000 Greeks in total at the Battle of Thermopylae.
Not just the Spartans and a few inept imbeciles to play clean up.
Friends don't let friends listen to Zach Snyder/